You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

May 15, 2015

Class Actions Arrive in Thailand: Will the Law of Unintended Consequences Prevail?

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

In December of this year, amendments to the Civil Procedure Code allowing for class-action lawsuits will come into force. If the effects on the legal systems of other jurisdictions are good indicators, the Thai legal landscape will undergo a fundamental shift. This article will introduce class actions generally and then look at the new legislation and its potential impact.

Class actions are most prevalent in the US. They conjure up images of Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich, or late-night television commercials asking whether a product has injured “you or a loved one.” If you have ever been a plaintiff in a class action, you may have received an amount less than your actual damages, while the lawyers received substantial fees.

In short, class actions allow groups of similarly situated individuals, both legally and factually, to group together as a “class” of plaintiffs in a single lawsuit against one or more defendants. Class actions have been praised for increasing the efficiency of courts, providing certainty to both plaintiffs and defendants, and allowing “good” lawsuits to be filed where individual plaintiffs could not otherwise afford to litigate.

Criticisms of the system focus primarily on minimal awards to individual class members (sometimes just coupons for additional products from the defendant), while attorneys in the same case are awarded substantial legal fees.

Whether good or bad, it is difficult to dispute the fact that class actions have forced companies to modify their behavior. Just last year, the healthcare company Heel Group decided to exit the United States and Canadian markets to avoid multiple class-action lawsuits. Less extreme reactions include companies changing warning labels and providing additional disclosures in advertisements.

Class actions have become an alternative method of regulation outside of standard government regulatory regimes, particularly where state agencies lack the funding or mandate required for effective enforcement.

Thailand’s version of class actions has the same features as the majority of those in other jurisdictions, with some significant departures that are primarily procedural. One fundamental difference with jurisdictions such as the United States is that there is no jury system in Thailand. This is likely to result in more predictable and limited monetary awards.

Interestingly, though, Section 222/8 of the amended Civil Procedure Code provides for the following types of class actions:

  • torts (negligence);
  • breach of contract; and
  • cases regarding “laws respecting the environment, consumer protection, labor, securities and stock exchange, and trade competition.”

Typically, laws passed to protect the public interest, such as environmental laws, are enforced by government agencies and do not allow individuals a general right to bring lawsuits directly in the courts. The language of Section 222/8 appears to open the door wider for such “direct action” lawsuits and could further complicate the regulatory environment.

For example, Thailand’s own Erin Brockovich-style lawsuit concerned the contamination of Klity Creek in Kanchanaburi from a lead-mining operation. In that case, nine villagers joined together to bring a suit against a company for contaminating the creek under environmental laws.

The court ruled that the contamination had killed the villagers’ livestock and caused adverse health effects on the villagers. The court awarded the villagers THB 38 million in damages. We have no indication of the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ fees but can safely assume they amounted to a mere fraction of the total damages.

The new class-action legislation authorizes a contingency fee or lawyers’ award for the plaintiffs’ lawyers of up to 30 percent of the total damages. In typical civil actions, plaintiffs’ lawyers are required to obtain legal fees and expenses directly from their clients, many of whom are indigent. The possibility of higher compensation is likely to result in more public interest and direct action lawsuits.

While the precise impact of class actions will only reveal itself through testing in the courts, what is clear is that all businesses with significant sales and operations in Thailand now face greater risks.

This increase in risk will likely manifest itself in higher insurance premiums for all, regardless of the level of actual operational risk of any particular business.

Those businesses involved in class actions, whether or not based on meritorious claims, will need to engage outside counsel to defend against these suits and will therefore face increased legal costs. For those considering investing in Thailand, the arrival of class actions may reduce Thailand’s attractiveness.

In conclusion, class actions in Thailand will allow commonly situated individuals to group together and directly protect their interests in court. However, these new rights will not come without costs borne by those doing business in Thailand, and possible impact on future investment.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

May 8, 2026
Thailand has liberalized its wine import regime, allowing, for the first time, multiple importers to bring in and distribute the same wine brands. On March 27, 2026, the Ministry of Finance issued the Ministerial Regulation on the Importation of Alcoholic Beverages (No. 3) 2026, which waives the requirement to appoint a sole authorized agent for alcoholic beverages to be specified in notifications from the Excise Department. The Excise Department has already issued its first such notification, expressly exempting wine and sparkling wine made from grapes from the sole agent requirement. For all other types of alcoholic beverages (e.g., beer, tequila, spirits) the sole agent requirement remains in force, and applicants for importer licenses must provide evidence of exclusive distributorship issued by the manufacturer or brand owner. The exemption may be extended to other alcoholic beverage categories through future Excise Department notifications. Implications for Competition and Tourism The reform allows multiple importers to bring in and distribute the same wine brand without routing through the brand owner’s designated exclusive importer, reducing monopolization and boosting competition. Excise Department Director-General Pornchai Thirawet noted that wine was chosen as the starting point because implementation is straightforward in this case and because domestic wine prices remain high—with increased competition expected to exert downward pressure on prices. More broadly, the reform is intended to lower market entry barriers, expand supply, and make wine more accessible to Thai consumers, while supporting Thailand’s position as a regional tourism hub. Product Quality Control and Loss of Sole Agent Accountability Under the previous framework, the designated importer bore full responsibility for the proper storage, handling, and distribution of wine and sparkling wine from importation to final sale. This arrangement helped ensure that products were maintained under appropriate conditions, including temperature control, light exposure, and humidity management, to preserve quality
April 22, 2026
A new decree in Vietnam brings significant implementation clarity to the country’s existing extended producer responsibility (EPR) legal framework. An EPR mechanism was first codified in Vietnam in the 2020 Law on Environmental Protection amid ongoing challenges surrounding the collection and treatment of product and packaging waste. The mechanism was progressively detailed through Decree No. 08/2022/ND‑CP and its successive amendments, but the regulatory framework remained insufficiently developed, notably in terms of support mechanisms for waste collection, recycling, and treatment. The newly launched regulations in Decree No. 110/2026/ND-CP (Decree 110), issued on April 1, 2026, and taking effect on May 25, 2026, stipulate fully and clearly the responsibility of manufacturers and importers to recycle products and packaging and to treat waste. Some key provisions of Decree 110 for manufacturers, importers, and related stakeholders are presented below. Subjects of EPR The Law on Environmental Protection assigns responsibility to manufacturers and importers for product and packaging recycling (under Article 54) or waste collection and treatment (under Article 55), depending on the type of products and packaging they produce or import. Decree 110 elaborates on these EPR provisions by specifying the responsible entities and listing out the types of products and packaging subject to recycling and waste treatment responsibilities. Decree 110 clarifies the responsible entities in special cases, such as when products under the same brand are made by multiple manufacturers, when there is a contract manufacturing or entrusted import relationship, and when the manufacturer or importer is part of a corporate group. Notably, exemptions may be applied in some scenarios, such as for manufacturers and importers of products and packaging exclusively for export, temporary import and re-export, or research and testing purposes, as well as for entities with annual revenue from related products not exceeding VND 30 billion. Recycling Responsibilities Decree 110
April 10, 2026
As digital commerce continues to reshape consumer behavior in Thailand, the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has been taking steps to review and update key regulations for online platforms. The OCPB has had a particular focus on addressing the risks posed by e-marketplace businesses—from misleading product information to fraudulent online transactions. Some of the regulator’s current legislative efforts related to Thailand’s labeling regulations as well as potential changes to the country’s law on direct sales and marketing. Proposed Changes to Consumer Protection Labeling Regulations On February 24, 2026, the OCPB convened a public hearing to review the Notification of the Committee on Labels re: Specification of Goods as Controlled Label Goods B.E. 2565 (2022) and its annex issued under the Consumer Protection Act. The closed-door session, which started the OPCD’s process of seeking feedback on the proposed changes, brought together representatives from government agencies, business operators, and consumer groups. The OCPB explained that its review of the labeling regulations aims to address regulatory gaps arising from evolving commercial practices, particularly the expansion of e-commerce and cross-border transactions. Authorities highlighted recurring issues involving product information that is unclear, incomplete, or potentially misleading in digital sales channels. The proposed revisions are intended to improve consumers’ access to accurate and complete product information, ensure that label disclosures remain relevant amid the growth of e-commerce, and strengthen protections against deceptive or misleading digital advertising. The review is being undertaken pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979). As part of the initiative, the OCPB signaled a potential update to the categories of “controlled label products” as well as enhanced disclosure obligations for business operators, with the broader aim of promoting greater transparency, reinforcing operator accountability, and aligning Thailand’s labeling framework with current market conditions. The OCPB secretary general emphasized that
April 1, 2026
On March 30, 2026, Thailand’s Customs Department announced a strategy to raise import duties on a broad range of consumer goods—including plastic items and electronics accessories—to their maximum statutory ceilings, which often sit at 30% or 40%. Many of these goods currently benefit from promotional or incentive rates as low as 5%. For importers, e-commerce platforms, and logistics providers, this development demands immediate attention. While these increases generally require cabinet approval, they do not require full parliamentary amendment of the Customs Tariff Decree B.E. 2530, as the Customs director-general and the finance minister hold delegated authority to adjust rates within existing statutory bounds. Businesses should not assume that the legislative process will provide significant lead time before higher rates take effect. Death of the De Minimis: Abolishing the THB 1,500 Loophole This “ceiling-rate” policy, which is designed to equalize the landed cost of foreign goods with the domestic production costs of Thai manufacturers, builds on a sweeping set of customs reforms that have already begun to reshape Thailand’s trade environment. The foundation of this new regime was laid on January 1, 2026, when Thailand formally abolished the longstanding THB 1,500 duty exemption for small imported parcels under Customs Notification No. 219/2568. Every imported item is now subject to VAT and applicable import duties for its declared value, regardless of parcel size or transaction amount. By narrowing the scope of exemptions previously granted to low-value goods under the Customs Tariff Decree B.E. 2530, the government has made clear that the era of tax-free cross-border micro-imports is over. Three-Phased Strategy and Legal Modernization The March 30 announcement is the second phase of a three-part regulatory roadmap: Immediate enforcement: The removal of the THB 1,500 loophole and the imposition of VAT on all parcels, effective January 1, 2026. Tariff realignment: The current